D&D 5E (2014) Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much

[fjw70]

One deal breaker for me would be too much story. I see people brag about going entire sessions without rolling dice. That would be fine occasionally but if that happened too often I would bow out. I enjoy the role playing but I don't want to ignore the game either.

 

[Lanefan]

I get that you are talking about how to slow a campaign down, but the suggestions above (in my experience) contributed to people quitting a campaign.

Perhaps, but your later information tells me instead...

- GM would forget to give out xp, and/or didnt like calculating it. Several times in 2 different campaigns, when he finally tabulated the xp, people went up 2 levels and were almost half way to another.

...

Also, my GM gets all buttthurt if you want to change characters.

...that much of the problem was in fact sitting behind the screen.

If the DM is too lazy to work out xp, or can't hit a minor curveball such as an unexpected change in the party lineup, then nothing I say is likely going to help.

I appreciate the hypothetical offer, and I'm not saying I wouldn't be willing to give it a shot. But given that I strongly prefer

A good-aligned and cooperative party
Ongoing plot arc/arcs, rather than sandbox
Minimizing dungeon crawls or treasure hunts
Milestone-based (non-XP-based) advancement
Roughly 4-6 sessions per level

I'm not convinced that I would be the best fit at your table.

Maybe not, but let's take these in order and see where we get, eh?

1. Party - my games are intentionally "anything goes", and the party ends up being whatever it becomes through the run of play. Sometimes they end up Goodly, sometimes anything but, and sometimes a given party will drift one way or another as its lineup and outlook morphs over time. That's largely down to the players and the decisions they make.

2. Plot arcs - believe it or not, I actually have these in my games at a few levels. There'll be one (or two) high-level overarching plots, mostly behind the scenes, that influence the game now and then as it goes along and eventually will, may, or might become front-and-centre. Then there'll be internal plots on a more here-and-now level that may or may not relate to the larger one(s); these can manifest as short adventure paths (3-6 adventures usually) embedded within the main campaign. Tack on things the party themselves decide to do as side adventures or whatever, along with an occasional stand-alone adventure not really related to anything, and there's lots and lots of gold to mine for story.

That said, it's entirely up to the party whether they follow my story arcs, tell them to get lost and then go do something unexpected, or a bit of both; all these have happened to me. And the way I see it, even though I storyboard out the adventures I'd like to run in a campaign I've no idea what I'll actually end up running*, how the story will end up going, or even whether my storyboard is worth the page it's written on; and won't until the campaign is done.
* - except the very first adventure; that's locked in ahead of time and the players have always been cool with this.

3. Minimizing dungeon crawls/treasure hunts - here we'd differ, as I'm an old-school dungeon crawler and treasure hunter. I'm awful at running city adventures and I know it, I can sort-of do political intrigue stuff, and wilderness isn't a problem.

4. Non-xp advancement - I never want to say never, but if I ever do this it won't be in a D&D campaign.

5. 4-6 sessions per level - if you're talking a typical 4-hour-ish evening session it'll take more than 4-6 of 'em to advance, particularly once the first few levels have passed. The 3-9 range is the sweet spot in 1e (and it'd be modified 1e I'd be running, almost certainly), and I'd like to make that part last as long as possible. That said, it raises the question of whether you are playing for story or playing for advancement; if you're strictly playing for story there'd be no need to ever advance at all, and if you're strictly playing for advancement there's no need for any depth of story beyond one encounter after another. I'd hazard a guess all of us want a bit of both; but advancement to me is secondary as long as the story - or even just the immediate adventure we're in - is fun and egnaging. Don't get me wrong - advancement is always nice - but it's secondary.

Hang on. This means that they advanced 5 levels from earnt XP... over 8 years of play, with 42-46 sessions per year?

That averages to nearly 2 years of real time, and around 70 sessions of play to advance a single level.

Er, hold on there [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION] - your math is burnt.

10th level - 3 levels = 7 levels, which over 8 years is a bit under 1 per year.

Now, keep in mind a bunch of other factors:

During that time you're not always playing the same character. We jump between parties, characters come and go and retire and return and die, level loss sometimes happens, and so on. I could spend half a week running hard numbers but life's too short so I'll guess: a character played continuously in my game for a year without any deaths or other hiccups will probably go up about a level-and-a-half; more if they are less than 3rd level and less if they are 9th or higher. I might be erring low on that, it may be closer to two levels. Overall, taking everything into account, the campaign as a whole - or at least the leading edge of it - tends to gain about a level a year. (yes the current highest got there a bit artificially but there also quite a few 7th-9th types who got there for real).

As an example: the party I'll be running tonight ranges currently from 6th-9th level with one of the 9th's tickling 10th. Sometime later this year we'll be putting that group on hold and jumping to another party, whose level range is (I think) 4th-8th; that group will run for a year or so and I'm not sure what'll happen beyond that (though I have some ideas, insert evil cackle here)

I find a level a month of real time works best personally (and DnD works to this expectation, with most groups getting in one session per week, with around 3-5 encounters per session, and around 4 such sessions to level.

Bleah! I'm one of those players who likes to be familiar enough with my character(s) that I can largely ignore the character sheet most of the time except for spells if I'm a caster, which would be impossible if every month I had a new bunch of abilities dropped in my lap.

No offence mate, but your group is an extreme outlier when it comes to level advancement. I personally could never play in a game with such slow level advancement.

We're an outlier, but I'm not sure we're quite as extreme as you may think. That said, if your only D&D/PF experience is with 3e or newer I can see why you'd think that.

Lan-"another pleasant side effect of long campaigns: I can take the time to put more depth into one setting rather than having to dream up new ones all the time"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

It's only just now occured to me that there's one thing I (somewhat amazingly) haven't seen mentioned at all in this thread as a deal-breaker either way:

Level of seriousness and-or whimsy in a campaign.

Me, if it were a 1-10 scale where 1 is all serious all the time and 10 is endless farcical slapstick, I'd prefer a game be around '6' and would probably bail on a 1, 2 or 10 once I realized that's what I'd signed on for.

Lan-"I hit you with a salmon for 1d4 damage"-efan

 

[Warbringer]

Only one deal breaker: wankers

 

[Connorsrpg]

I'll try anything once or twice. There is really nothing that would be a deal breaker except for lack of enthusiasm by players and DM. As long as everyone is relatively positive and invested in the game, I'll endure nearly anything. If players are not all in, I'll stop playing or DMing. I like commitment over anything else.

Pretty much this, though, this lack of commitment has not meant anyone 'walked', they just stopped showing up. This has been a BIG problem with some of my gaming groups. It seems it is more preferable for them to play games online with digital friends than real friends. B/c sitting around a table rolling dice and having a yarn just seems to be too much trouble these days

Nothing, other than very poor behaviour would make me walk from a game. There have been MANY things I have not liked about a game over the years, but I would rather 'get through it' and then talk to the other players or GM afterwards.

Such things as fudging or pretty much being 'told' what to do with your PCs is right up there. When there has been presented one 'obvious' choice, but you as a player or your PC just wouldn't do that. (In recent game, we were 'expected' to go to the keep when the dragon was attacking the town. Not stay and protect the people? I am sure you can guess which module we were playing...)

 

[Iain_Coleman]

Actually, I am using drunk as drunk is defined. I admit, I am terribly fond of using words as defined when I speak/write, so as to avoid confusion should anyone wonder what I mean by any given word. But in all seriousness, go look up the term drunk. In every dictionary, even. In all of them, it is defined as a state in which one's physical and mental faculties are impaired by an excess of alcoholic drink. Thus, when I say drunk, I actually do in fact mean intoxicated to a point that your faculties are impaired (even mildly impaired, but the metric is impaired). A light buzz-on is not drunk, since you are not impaired. Sorry, I thought that was clear. But for all future references if you are unsure of how I am using a word, then the baseline assumption should be I am using it as defined, unless I am obviously using slang.

Reluctant as I am to prolong this increasingly tedious tangent in which you appear unreasonably strongly invested, I do wish to point out that "a light buzz-on" is in fact an impairment. It's a level where you're too intoxicated to drive a car safely, and for most jobs it's a level where you aren't going to perform as well as if you were sober. Indeed, the very fact that you are conscious of feeling "a light buzz-on" is itself an indicator of impairment.

I don't really give a toss what you do at your gaming table, but please don't get in a car and drive with "a light buzz-on".

 

[Azurewraith]

It's only just now occured to me that there's one thing I (somewhat amazingly) haven't seen mentioned at all in this thread as a deal-breaker either way:

Level of seriousness and-or whimsy in a campaign.

Me, if it were a 1-10 scale where 1 is all serious all the time and 10 is endless farcical slapstick, I'd prefer a game be around '6' and would probably bail on a 1, 2 or 10 once I realized that's what I'd signed on for.

Lan-"I hit you with a salmon for 1d4 damage"-efan

Suprisrd this didnt come up earlier tbh I think 4is more my sweet spot but its good company so I would roll with it.

 

[Flamestrike]

Er, hold on there @Flamestrike - your math is burnt.

10th level - 3 levels = 7 levels, which over 8 years is a bit under 1 per year.

Nah man, you said the PC is currently 9th (nearly 10th) level. He got handed 3 of these levels from a magic item, and started at level 1.

Meaning he has advanced five levels (1-6) in eight years of almost weekly play.

A character played continuously in my game for a year without any deaths or other hiccups will probably go up about a level-and-a-half; more if they are less than 3rd level and less if they are 9th or higher. I might be erring low on that, it may be closer to two levels. Overall, taking everything into account, the campaign as a whole - or at least the leading edge of it - tends to gain about a level a year. (yes the current highest got there a bit artificially but there also quite a few 7th-9th types who got there for real).

Even that is way too slow for my tastes, and I dare say for most other peeps as well. YMMV of course, but to me it sounds like your rate of advancement is an outlying exception to most tables.

This isnt a criticism - if its working at your table and for your players then great. Personally, advancing at only around a level per RL year would be a deal breaker for me. I would feel like I was spinning wheels and as if my character was not developing at all.

I'm one of those players who likes to be familiar enough with my character(s) that I can largely ignore the character sheet most of the time except for spells if I'm a caster, which would be impossible if every month I had a new bunch of abilities dropped in my lap.

It doesnt take a year of weekly play to become familiar with your characters abilities in any system I know, and I'm not aware of any systems whereby you gain a whole new suite of abilities on levelling up. The underlying mechanics of the system account for 90 percent of knowledge of a game, and once you have that down pat, advancing a level rarely gets you anything but adding another +1 to rolls and a new ability or spell or two. It shouldnt take you a year of weekly play to gain familiarity with this

We're an outlier, but I'm not sure we're quite as extreme as you may think. That said, if your only D&D/PF experience is with 3e or newer I can see why you'd think that.

I've been playing for just over thirty years. I cut my teeth on BECMI and AD&D about a three years before Unearthed Arcana came out (and I still recall how that tome changed everything with the Cavalier and Barbarian, cantrips, weapon specialisation, PC Drow and more). Over that time I've played dozens of different roleplaying systems from Rolemaster, Spacemaster, Gurps, WFRP, Shadowrun, d6 Star Wars, Pathfinder, Rifts etc in many different States in my home nation (Australia) and in the UK during my 4 years over there. Played or Dmed in literally hundreds of campaigns in dozens of groups over that time. Lived through the golden and silver age, saw the demise of TSR and the near death of the gaming culture round the time MTG came out, and lived though the D20 renaisance. Rode out (and kept out of) the edition wars (while ditching 4E and going the PF route).

My experiences differ from yours. I do think you are in an extreme outlier. Not that I'm being critical mind you - I just dont think you can put forward the argument that the rate of advancement in your game is in any way typical.

Lan-"another pleasant side effect of long campaigns: I can take the time to put more depth into one setting rather than having to dream up new ones all the time"-efan

You're not alone with longer campaigns though. A typical campaign will last (for me) for several years in an open ended manner. My first campaign was an (evil) Rolemaster game (paralleled with an AD&D, Shadowrun and Star wars D6) campaign in my high school years that ran weekly for 5 years. Our party Mage reached 60th level before MCing into a Cleric and again hitting 60th (although this was RM where 2-3 RM level = 1 AD&D levels). As I mentioned above, I loathe short campaigns (anything under a year or two), particularly ones which fizzle out after a month or two.

But that said, I couldnt play in a game with a rate of advancement (DnD 5e scale) of significantly less than around 1 level every 4 sessions, nor would I want to play in a game where you leveled up too fast (around once per session or more).

At an advancement of around a level per real world month (or every 4 sessions) your PCs are hitting 20th in around 20 months of weekly play. Adding in real life comitements, holidays where peeps go OS and similar, this really adds up to around two years of weekly play to hit the 20th level mark, which for mine is the ideal pacing.

YMMV and preferences differ from table to table, but thats where mine lay.

 

[Flamestrike]

Personally, I can't even get into character until I've done a line of coke and a shot of vodka, preferably off a body part of a young woman who is no doubt making her father proud.

I am extremely intrested in joining your group.

 

[TwoSix]

Personally, I can't even get into character until I've done a line of coke and a shot of vodka, preferably off a body part of a young woman who is no doubt making her father proud.

But you know, I play with Wall Street investment-types, and when in Rome...

Leonardo Dicaprio stars in The Dire Wolf of Wall Street.